Mitt the Pot, Rick the Kettle

Ross Douthat has a neat analysis of why Rick Santorum poses such a particular threat to Mitt Romney. Excerpt:

But Santorum’s advantage is that he can get to Romney’s right and to his left at once. On the one hand, Santorum isn’t responsible for a health care bill that looks an awful lot like “Obamacare” and he doesn’t have a long list of social-issue flip-flops in his past. This makes his candidacy a plausible rallying point for the voters who previously turned Bachmann and Cain and the pre-debate Rick Perry into conservative flavors of the month.

At the same time, though, Santorum’s persona, his record and his platform all have a populist tinge that plays well in states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, where swing voters tend to be socially conservative but economically middle-of-the-road. (Hence the Michigan poll that showed himleading among independents and Democrats who plan to vote in that state’s open primary.)

This means that Santorum can play the same anti-Bain, anti-rich-guy, blue-collar card that Gingrich tried to play in New Hampshire and South Carolina – but subtly, implicitly, in ways that don’t make him sound like he belongs in Occupy Wall Street instead of the Republican primary.

Ross suggests that Romney needs to find a way to frame Santorum as “the consummate Bush-era Republican,” which in most ways Santorum certainly is. I don’t see how Romney pulls this off, though. Can you think of a single thing Mitt Romney stands for today that separates him from George W. Bush’s policies? I know it’s risky business to try to pin Mitt Romney’s beliefs down, but in 2007, Big Think asked candidate Romney to reflect on Bush’s legacy. Here’s what he said; emphases are mine:

Well there will be things that are great accomplishments . . . I think we will recognize that he kept us safe these last few years, and that was not easy to do. He fought for the Patriot Act. He made sure that when Al Qaeda was calling, we were listening. He made sure that terrorists that were caught, we interrogated to find out what they knew so we could protect our country. He kept us safe. That’s the first responsibility of a president. Secondly, he went after the guys that went after us. No more in this world do you say, “Hey, we can go after America and nothing happens.” He made sure people realize there are consequences for attacking us. They attacked us at the U.S.S. Cole. They attacked us in Saudi Arabia. They attacked us in our . . . in African embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. And actually they attacked our Marines in Lebanon. We didn’t respond. And finally when George Bush was president and they attacked us on 9/11, we did respond in a major and aggressive way, and they know there are consequences for attacking us. His commitment to education and “No Child Left Behind”, I also support. And his effort to help people get prescription drugs I think was a good effort, although I think we should’ve reformed Medicare as part of the process because the Medicare Part D alone, I’m afraid, added a huge new entitlement that I think will not be a positive part of his legacy. There are other elements that were not as successful. I wish we would have been able to see the reform of entitlements. That just didn’t happen. He tried, that was unsuccessful. And of course the conflict in Iraq was not superbly managed. Following the collapse of Saddam Hussein, we just did not have the right level of troop strength. We did not have the rules of engagement or the . . . the plans and preparations in place to . . . to have Iraq become stable in the timeframe it should have become stable. So there will be pluses and minuses; but overall we’ll know that this is a president who did what he thought was right for America at every turn.

(In case you were wondering, the TARP bailout is not addressed here because this was recorded on November 26, 2007, before the 2008 crash.)

Let’s unpack this. Romney supported the Patriot Act. Romney supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and says the only thing that was wrong with attacking Iraq is that it wasn’t managed well. He supported No Child Left Behind. He supported the budget-busting Medicare Part D entitlement, though with reservations. And he believed that Bush’s good intentions absolve him.

Well, that was five years ago. What does Romney believe now? Go to the issues page on MittRomney.com and see for yourself. I dare you to find anything there that differs substantially from anything George W. Bush believed. Iraq isn’t on the list, but he’s following the Bush script for Afghanistan. He says nothing about education policy, but reportedly still supports the unpopular No Child Left Behind program. There’s nothing about banking regulations, which indicates that Romney doesn’t see a thing in need of reform there, a la Bush. And Romney supports TARP.

True, Romney opposed the auto industry bailout (which is hurting him in Michigan, predictably), though he blames Obama for it, not Bush, whose administration first provided bailout money to Detroit. Still, that’s a clear difference he has with the Bush legacy, though given how well the auto bailout has worked, I’m not sure that helps him much. Besides, his continued support for TARP means he doesn’t oppose bailouts in theory.

In sum, there is no credible way for Romney to paint Santorum as the consummate Bush-era Republican without condemning himself. If he tries to position himself as an “outsider,” given his lack of Washington experience (versus Santorum’s), all Santorum has to do is point out that the entire Washington GOP establishment backs Mitt — so who’s the real outsider? Yadda yadda.

The bigger problem here is that the Republican Party has not yet come to terms with the failures of the Bush presidency. Whether the nominee is Santorum or Romney, the GOP will be offering to voters a third Bush term. Exciting, huh?

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 35 comments

35 Responses to Mitt the Pot, Rick the Kettle

Foreign policy wise we’ve already had the third Bush term. Our freedoms have been eroded more. We continued the wars. We ramped up the “collateral damage”. And probably worst of all, we’ve done it on the credit card to the point our interest pays for a Chinese military.

There isn’t a Buchanan “A Republic not an Empire” candidate other than Ron Paul around. Cripes, I figured if we got one thing out of Obama it would be less Empire. Shame on me.

Ross suggests that Romney needs to find a way to frame Santorum as “the consummate Bush-era Republican,” which in most ways Santorum certainly is. I don’t see how Romney pulls this off, though. Can you think of a single thing Mitt Romney stands for today that separates him from George W. Bush’s policies?

Well, so what? The entire Republican Party is still George W. Bush from top to bottom. All of Romney’s foreign policy advisers are ex-Bush administration folks. Grover Norquist was described as “the field marshal of the Bush agenda in Congress” by an aide to Dick Armey. Paul Ryan voted with the Bush administration 94 percent of the time (including on Medicare Part D).

None of this matters.

Romney’s health care plan in Massachusetts– which he & Jim DeMint once said could be a model for the country– was one source of the ACA. Romney praised aspects of the ACA back in the ancient times of 2009-2010. The Obama administration drew from the same experts that Romney had as governor.

Now, of course, Romney says that he hates the ACA, and will repeal it the second he walks in the door.

I see no evidence for the proposition that Romney will refrain from attacking someone just because he’s done the same thing in the past; nor do I see evidence for the argument that Republican primary voters will care.

“The bigger problem here is that the Republican Party has not yet come to terms with the failures of the Bush presidency.”

I know you keep saying this, but I’m not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean the DC-based “establishment” (boo!) or the voters (by which I’ll mean Tea Party types) or what? Do you mean domestically, or foreign policy, or what?

Because I’d say that the Tea Party base views TARP and the bailouts and stuff like Medicare Part D and other big government “compassionate conservativism” as “the failures of the Bush presidency” and as complete anathema. Of course, the DC establishment, being establishment, thinks that big government is indeed the solution to everything. [And as has been said many, many times by lefties, Obama is “a third Bush term” in many, many ways (not to minimize the awfulness of Obamacare and the spending that’s even more insane than Bush-era lunacy was)–the US political system values inertia quite highly, after all, and the modern bureaucratic leviathan state must keep growing, no matter who is in charge.]

And yet you also savaged the Tea Party back in the spring as economic nihilists and crazies for daring to argue that the deficit has to be controlled, ASAP. So I’m not quite sure what you want “the Republican Party” to do.

Santorum is W without the HBS cleverness, just more earnest. America, you are warned: if you think the Iraq war was a mistake, and W was Louis XVI, this man is Charles X of France, the opportunity to repeat a mistake on a whole new level.

The bigger problem here is that the Republican Party has not yet come to terms with the failures of the Bush presidency. Whether the nominee is Santorum or Romney, the GOP will be offering to voters a third Bush term. Exciting, huh?

This is why no-one is seriously excited about the GOP race. Exercised, to be sure, but not excited.

The Bush era marked the triumph and failure of the grand conservative coalition which, in the end, proved to be an incoherent mess of special interests swapping favors. And it turns out that the ability to “drive the negatives” on opponents doesn’t equal the ability to govern competently, much less wisely.

What’s preventing a Reaganesque articulate a positive vision for America is this: Whatever you might be for, some GOP faction is dead set against you.

This fits with my thinking this past week or so that Mitt Romney, for good or bad depending on your views, is George H.W. Bush in ’92, minus the economic disconnect and D.C. inside pov. His views are similar. His appearance isn’t all that different, he’s the son of a famous politician, etc. People didn’t get excited enough for that in ’92 either. Unfortunately–and I can’t believe I’m going to say this this–we could only wish Obama was a ’92 Clinton.

As others of you have said, we do have a serious problem here, and one I don’t see us solving any time soon, how to deal with the legacy of Bush/Cheney. From “compassionate conservatism” which is neither compassionate nor conservative to the fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq to their total complete disregard for the Constitution at all levels, Bush was unquestionably one of the worst presidents in American history.

And yet so many people on the right including the talking heads on the radio like Sean and Rush and others continue to heap praise on these two and defend their worst excesses. My wife and I just listen in amazement when Sean has Cheney on his show or Rove or any of these people. Listening to Cheney defend the torture, the detainee abuse while Sean listens and treats Cheney likes he is some sort of hero utterly appalls us.

And as we see from the quotes above, we know Romney as president will change none of it, will support the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, will support his own version of “compassionate conservatism” at the cost of who knows how many trillions of dollars, will support an interventionist foreign policy, more “white man’s burden”, more democracy jihad, more “world’s policeman”, will do nothing to stop the detainee abuse, the torture, the violations of conventions Reagan himself supported. Romney isn’t going to push for the elimination of the Fifth Amendment destroying language in the current NDAA. And Santorum is going to be the same.

All in at least part because of urban myth that Bush/Cheney “saved the country”. That they were well intentioned regarding no child left behind, the medicare drug benefit, TARP (we CAN’T let those companies die can we?) that if we had to torture those people, like congressman West did when he allowed the Iraqi policeman to be beaten in front of him then carried out a mock execution totally in violation of American law and those conventions Reagan supported, well intentions matter more than actions right? (Can someone explain to me by the way why the Florida republican party went anywhere near this guy?)

We have been victimized for two generations by the great urban myth that FDR saved the country with the New Deal and other nonsense. How long will we be equally victimized by the great urban myths of the Bush years?

Because I’d say that the Tea Party base views TARP and the bailouts and stuff like Medicare Part D and other big government “compassionate conservativism” as “the failures of the Bush presidency” and as complete anathema.

Larison has just today linked to a piece claiming that Santorum has had more Tea Party voter support than Ron Paul. (The author isn’t happy about it.)

Romney’s views on illegal immigration now are certainly not what W pushed for. That is one area he changed, but only because it’s become a sine qua non for Republican candidates ( a decade too late, IMO).

Otherwise, yes, this is a fatal problem for the GOP. Bush’s big failure was his grandiose (if not hubristic) foreign policy, and no Republican outside of Paul will criticize that in any sort of serious manner. You don’t have to go full Paultard, but we can certainly ask why we’re somehow responsible for managing the peace of security of almost every corner of the globe. Here, despite the idiocy of Libya, the Obama Adminstration is still better than what’s on offer from the GOP.

“There’s nothing about banking regulations, which indicates that Romney doesn’t see a thing in need of reform there, a la Bush.”

From Romney’s economic plan:

“While the plumbing of our financial system was definitely in need of an update, Dodd-Frank represents a massive overreach of the federal government into private markets. Some of the provisions in Dodd-Frank will no doubt cause
banks and investment firms to avoid the kind of risky and leveraged behavior that led to the financial crisis.”

He also mentioned the need for reform of banking regulations when directly asked in a recent debate. This isn’t something he’s emphasising during the primary elections, probably for tactical reasons, but it’s something he recognizes.

Rod, why do you consistently ignore the continuity between the prior and the current administrations’ “neocon” foreign policy? Disagree with that policy if you please, please!, but don’t pretend this rare case of establishment bi-partisanship is the policy of only one party.

While the presidency of George W. Bush definitely deserves condemnation, the decline of the modern Republican Party was cemented in 1952 when Robert Taft lost the presidential nomination to Dwight Eisenhower. With the notable and heroic exception of Ron Paul, Taft was the last national Republican who generally believed and attempted to implement limited government domestically and a non-interventionist, non-militaristic foreign policy.

Rod, why do you consistently ignore the continuity between the prior and the current administrations’ “neocon” foreign policy? Disagree with that policy if you please, please!, but don’t pretend this rare case of establishment bi-partisanship is the policy of only one party.

I believe I have said before that on foreign policy, we pretty much have one party. I have also said that while I didn’t vote for Obama, I had hoped that he would be better than Bush on foreign policy. It’s true that we’re leaving Iraq on his watch (good!) and it looks like we’re winding down in Afghanistan on his watch too (also praiseworthy). But generally, I see him as more of a figure of continuity than anything else — which is why GOP attempts to portray him as some sort of radical figure are so risible.

Because I’ve not until now taken Santorum seriously as a potential GOP nominee. I am strongly opposed to Santorum’s hyperhawkish foreign policy views, which is why he is unappealing to me. But I would find Santorum’s protectionist views appealing. And it’s certainly the case that Santorum really believes in social conservatism. Romney, on his position page, says he will push for a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage. Bush said the same thing, and when Santorum and his colleagues introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment, Bush issued a pro forma statement of support, then faded away. Bush no more intended to support this than Romney does. Like him or not, Santorum walks the walk on social issues.

One thing every pundit agrees on is that Obama is going to go massively negative in the campaign because he has no choice. His “Hope & Change” appeal is gone, his economic record is terrible, and if gas really does go to $5/gallon this summer things are going to get ugly. And while his negative campaign will quite probably make independents loathe Santorum, it won’t make them like him any more–just the opposite, in fact, as history shows. So we’ll be looking at independents (who he desperately needs) staying home in disgust. Certainly not showing up in droves to pull the lever for him.

What a dreary and dispiriting campaign it will be. Luckily I don’t have cable, or I’d be tempted to cancel it, along with internet and newspapers and just go live in a cabin in the mountains somewhere while we all hope for the Mayan apocalypse to save us.

OK Dreher so keep me updated: is the “true conservative” position to have always been against the war in Afghanistan (which you can’t claim) or are we just talking Operation Desert Storm-style get in, get out vs. nation-building? if it’s the latter OK. if it’s the former, well…that’d make about 99.9999% of the country “neocon” ideologues cuz they didn’t want to sit on their hands after 9/11.

No disrespect for the Ron Paul’s fans, but he’s is an absolute non-starter for social conservatives (abortion) and neo-conservatives (defense). For me he’s a non-starter on economics, his prescriptions would deflate the American economy thus punishing the middle class for the recklessness of the “financial services industry.”

or are we just talking Operation Desert Storm-style get in, get out vs. nation-building?

That. Nation-building in Afghanistan was the mistake.

CP, I’m with you pretty much on Paul. I’m much closer to him on foreign policy than I am with any of his GOP rivals, but I don’t understand the appeal and rationale of his economic views. I am glad he’s in this race, because he offers a real choice to voters. But he’s too idiosyncratic and counter-mainstream to be a viable presidential candidate.

In your news-of-the-weird for today, Dave Mustaine on Ron Paul (he also gives his opinion about the other GOP candidates at http://www.musicradar.com/news/live/interview-megadeths-dave-mustaine-talks-guitar-politics-and-todays-music-529703/3):
“Ron Paul… you know, I heard somebody say he was like insecticide – 98 percent of it’s inert gases, but it’s the two percent that’s left that will kill you. What that means is that he’ll make total sense for a while, and then he’ll say something so way out that it negates everything else. I like the guy because he knows how to excite the youth of America and fill them in on some things. But when he says that we’re like the Taliban… I’m sorry, Congressman Paul, but I’m nothing like the Taliban”

And somehow Mustaine hits it out of the park as to why Ron Paul can’t break through. His economic stridency would have huge appeal at this point in the current depression and even his isolationism would be palatable with a bit of work but the moral-equivalence he insists upon between America and folks like the Taliban and the Iranian mullahs just isn’t going to ever get a hold in mainstream America. His son is obviously smart enough to realize this and will have a good shot at someday going all the way, though.

Yeah, Brian, that’s exactly who I mean. They don’t like Obama, but, along with Newt and Paul, he’s one of the few choices they’ll like even less. Moreover, he’ll energize the left to come out and vote against him, making down ballot races all the harder for the GOP.

The rest of your hopes for November rely things going economically south. Well, what if they don’t? People are saying we’ll see $5/gal gas? That’s speculation, and it hasn’t always been right. Even with Obama’s determined efforts to get that price up there, it may not happen. What will you do then, with the one of the most easily lampoonable scolds at the top of the ticket? I don’t think Dave Mustaine will be able to pull Rick out the holes he’s been digging for himself for the past ten years.

Re: when Santorum and his colleagues introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment, Bush issued a pro forma statement of support, then faded away.

The Constitution itself pretty much makes the president a mere bystander in the amendment process. If Mr Bush was willing not to stick his nose into the middle of that (beyond expressing his support) where he had no proper constitutional role, then so much the better. Surely there are a few things His Majesty The President can leave to Congress. Not many, but a couple at least.

Re: No disrespect for the Ron Paul’s fans, but he’s is an absolute non-starter for social conservatives (abortion)

I believe that Paul is solidly pro-Life and would appoint anti Roe judges. And really, that’s all you need the President to do– the one crucial thing.
That he probably thinks abortion in a post-Roe should be legislated at the state level does not strike me as a point against him. It’s where abortion was legislated all along before Roe, and as someone with solid pro-Life leanings I don’t have a problem with a return to the status quo ante.

Mr. Polichinello, my friend, tell me this: what possible lampoon can “the left” throw that they haven’t already blunted against the steely Mrs. Palin? And what about Santorum’s social conservatism will those independents who twice voted for George Bush find impossible to stomach?

I guess “the left” has been giving the same advice to Republican candidates for decades, and it always boils down to: be more like us. Well, they can’t be blamed for trying, but heeding it would be about as bright as heeding your sister’s advice on getting Mom to give you the last Popsicle in the freezer.

Polichinello: The only future prediction I’ll make is that this will not happen: “the GOP will lose a huge majority of independent voters and possibly their House majority.” Even with Santorum, who isn’t even that likely to be the nominee. The left is going to turn out massively for O regardless. The right will turn out against O regardless. Independents HATE Obama right now, and since Madame Pelosi decided to stick around, they’re certainly not going to vote to hand the House back to the Dems, whose behavior in 2009-10 they HATED with a red-hot passion. Having Obama convince them to HATE Santorum will simply result in most independents staying home, with the ones willing to show up being the ones who want to kick O out–indies who kind of want the incumbent to stay since he’s the lesser evil don’t bother to vote.

I have no hopes for November. These candidates are all horrible. The Dems want to drive us over the cliff at 100 mph, while the GOP wants to slow down to 98. We’re completely boned.

Romney needs to hit Rick over the head with his lack of executive experience and the very real fact that any GOP senator nominated in recent memory has yet to win the presidency. Governors get it done, senators talk about getting it done. Santorum has about as much executive experience as Senator Obama had as a presidential candidate and why don’t want to make that mistake again.

I’m not a Romney supporter but I believe he will play ball with Ron Paul to keep us on board with maybe Ron for Treasury Secretary and adding no military action by the executive branch without a declaration of war from congress to the party platform. Two very simple concessions to keep us on board or maybe Rand as Veep.

Re: Independents HATE Obama right now, and since Madame Pelosi decided to stick around, they’re certainly not going to vote to hand the House back to the Dems, whose behavior in 2009-10 they HATED with a red-hot passion.

Where are you getting this from? True independents (not just people who coyly refuse to name a party preferrence, though they haven’t voted for the other guys in years) are all over the map. And note that the current Congress’ popularity ratings these days are somewhere south of cockroaches and bedbugs.

I am an independent who voted for Obama. But now, I despise Obama. But it will be a cold day in hell before I would vote for any of the GOP candidates. Never. Never. Never. The only one I have any respect for is Paul, and not because I agree with him on most issues. But I do know where he stands. That is something. Romney? Please. He is fake. He wants to be President the same way a 6 year old wants to be a fireman when he grows up. He already has all the money so the next thing to check off his bucket-list is being President. Give me a real conservative (fiscally, foreign-policy, fair, etc.) who isn’t also a social issues whack-job and I will vote for him or her. Is anybody out there? All I hear is an echo of my desperate calls for help.

Dear Mr Dreher, you do not understand Dr Paul’s economic views because you are either a Keynesian or get your ‘views’ from mainstream sources. I suggest you read history, boom and bust cycles, ‘the Creature from Jekyll Island, and economists prior to the ‘debt is wealth cycle’, that began circa Clinton’s deregulation era, and with the repeal of Glass-Steagal..

The 2008 crash was a drop in the bucket of what is about to happen, and you don’t know it because it is not in the banks or the corporate persons interest that you know.

Paul appeals to the very educated, or the uneducated, in this case, inured to media manipulation, (m.o.p.e., management of perception economics).

RP’s economic plan is meant to give the average Joe a chance to survive this. He emailed his supporters months before the crash and saved a lot of us. And yet you believe when you are told that ‘Nobody saw it coming’.

Repeat the lie, repeat the lie, repeat lie, until it is the truth.

Debt is money, but not for you.

Santorum is another MacWar, already duly noted by the dust bin of history.

Here are some places to help you get started saving yourself and your loved ones from poverty, degradation, fascism-where it comes full circle to meet communism, and eternal war.

George Orwell, biography of a one percenter who walked away to warn us that, ‘The future of the mankind is a jack-boot stepping on a human face, forever.’